Krystal and Saagar discuss Black Friday shoppers crushed, Trump frees convicted fraudsters, Hegseth throws Admiral under bus for Venezuela strikes.
To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com
Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Let's turn now to poverty. There was an absolutely fascinating.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Essay that went very very viderable amongst the you know,
the economy literati, and it was about the poverty line.
And as you guys may know, the federal poverty line
is a set standard where it's currently set is very
very low. There's long been a discussion about whether that
poverty line really captures things. But this new essay by
Michael Green argues that the federal poverty line should be
(00:59):
higher and hire.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
A lot high.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Let's put this up here on the screen. So what
he writes, very specifically is that the US poverty line,
which is currently set to keep a family out of
poverty is thirty two one hundred and fifty for a
family of four.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Michael Green did some math.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Quote for a family of four to afford housing, healthcare, challdcare,
and other necessities, he calculated that they would need at
least one hundred and thirty six thousand dollars a year.
He says it should be more than four times that
a figure would mean that the majority of American households
are living in poverty by his metric. This idea, which
they specifically say, published on sub stack, and again it
(01:35):
made a huge It was went so viral amongst economists
and others.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Basically, what he's.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Saying, the more like conservative faction is saying it's ridiculous, quote,
disconnected from reality, laughable to put poverty line far above
the median income in the United States, which is some
eighty three thousand dollars. But the thing is is that
if you read it, it does make sense to me.
The only quibble is about the definition of poverty. So
(02:03):
the question is is does poverty mean destitute or does
it mean not getting by. I guess we've learned of
it as destitute, but not getting by for a long
enough period, I don't know. I mean, maybe it does
count as poverty, yah, And I think that's one of them.
And by the way, that's why part of the whole
discussion is really frustrating. And anybody who has lived in
(02:25):
a high cost of living area, we all know people
making one hundred two even two hundred thousand who are
not close to making it, like, not close to achieving
even modestly more than what their parents did. I'm not
gonna say sit here and call it poverty, but I
would sit here and say that's a systemic failure. And
that's part of why I appreciate the essay because all
(02:45):
the matter, you guys should go read it, just specifically
about the way that he breaks down all the costs,
the cost all the costs basic necessities, which we've talked
about here before as well. The fact is is like
upward mobility, especially in a higher cost of living areas,
which no, you don't have to live there, but that
is for most of the economic activity is mostly unattainable
for anybody who makes a median household income that's a
(03:08):
systemic issue, and it didn't always used to be like that.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
That's the bottom line.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Yeah, And so here are his estimates of using what
he describes as conservative national average data of the baseline costs,
the sort of like participation costs, so that you can
be in you know, normal standing in society and participate
in like a normal way with society. Childcare most expensive
(03:32):
thirty two thousand and seven seventy three thirty two thousand
dollars per childcare, housing twenty three thousand, plus food fourteen thousand,
plus transportation fourteen thousand, plus healthcare ten k, other essentials
twenty one k required net income one eighteen and then
you add taxes on top of that, you're getting one
thirty six, five hundred. That's where he gets the numbers from,
(03:54):
and he says, you know, listen, the quibble that I
get from people is, you know, yes, it's good to
reevaluate where the poverty line is. I think everybody agrees
that the way of calculating is certainly outdated on I
can go into more on that in a moment, but
they're like, listen, you know, if you're if you're getting
(04:14):
a landline, you know, you're you're putting in things here
that are way more expensive than just the essentials. So
but Key points out, in order to participate in society,
like back when the poverty line was established, you needed
a land line, which costs you, you know, a.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
Minimal amount per month.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Now the same landline is even cheaper, but that doesn't
allow you to fully participate in society. You need that
two hundred dollars smartphone. And so while certain costs have
gone down, the cost of being a full participant in
society has gone up dramatically. And then of course these
categories have gone through the roof. All of these areas,
(04:52):
except for food, are places where you know, costs have
gone up and up and up. We talk all the
time about childcare, housing, This does any factor in the
cost of you know, a college education, which is another
extraordinary expense. And so this helps to capture why so
many people who when you look at their income, you're like,
you should be doing fine. Why so many people are like, no,
(05:12):
but I'm drowning, but like life is really difficult, and
I feel like I'm getting behind, and I feel like
things are going to be more difficult for my children.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
So it's a very fascinating.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Look, you know, with regard to the poverty line, what
he points out is when it was established, food was
made up about a third of overall spending, So the
poverty line was established as three times whatever the average
food budget was, and they have kept that metric the
whole time, even though now food is only maybe five
(05:43):
or six percent of the overall budget because these other
categories have increased in costs so much. And also, you know,
childcare that used to not be something that needed to
be considered at all because you typically had a one
income family. That income was sufficient for this level of life,
baseline societal participation, and if you had childcare, it was
(06:03):
like relatives usually who would or neighbors who would take
care and look after the kids. So now that you
basically have to have two incomes in most instances in
order to make it in society. That second income it's
not like that's all just going to the bottom line.
The first thirty two thousand dollars of that second income
(06:24):
is just going straight to some other person to take
care of your kids. That's the first part. So then
you have to be clearing more than that to even
make the second job worthwhile. And that's the other you know,
that's like the two income trap. That's like the hidden.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
Costs that have been added on to families.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
And then the other thing that he points out, which is,
you know, part of why I support universal programs versus
this like neoliberal, piecemeal social safety net thing that we
do is that if you are very low income, life
is going to be difficult. I'm not saying you've got
it easy, but you do have some government supports. Right,
You're going to be qualified for SNAP, You're going to
qualify for Medicaid, You're going to get subsidies with regards
(07:03):
to childcare as well.
Speaker 4 (07:04):
There's going to be some help.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
And at certain levels, as you climb up the income scale,
there are these cliffs where Okay, now I'm not getting SNAPPED,
so now that all is on me, Okay, So whatever
income I'm earning, I have to subtract out of that
what I was previously getting. Okay, Now I go up
with another level. Now I'm not getting Medicaid anymore. I
have to pull pay full freight for healthcare. That's an
extraordinary expense. So whatever additional I'm earning is basically all
(07:27):
being eaten up by those additional costs, and you can
see how that allows politicians to turn middle class or
working poor people against the very poor, because they're like,
this is not fair. This person's working less than me
and getting way more, And they're right, it's not fair.
But the problem isn't that person who is also struggling.
The problem is the design of the system. And the
(07:48):
problem is that, you know, those who have rigged the
system for their benefit and keeping everybody miserated in this way.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
Yeah, I mean the way I always look at it,
especially with this one, is not only the two income trap,
but also the prison of a lot of this for you.
You're damned if you do, and you really are damned
if you don't. Also, thirty thousand dollars, we'd be lucky.
After thirty thousand dollars childcare where I live we have
been I think the seventh highest in the United States SEC,
(08:14):
which is only beaten in Northern Virginia by Arlington, which
is number one in the whole of America. Hearing the
DMB one hundred and fifty k over a five year period.
So the point though it actually I think it might
be might be one sixth crazy, So it is crazy
and that's after taxing a house. It is ouse in
some places in this country. But that's the issue. What
(08:35):
you see inside of this is not only from housing
but also healthcare. Because he says ten k I'm lucky
for paid ten thousand dollars for health insurance.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
That's a long dream. After you have a child, If.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
You have employer sponsored healthcare, I guess you're lucky to
pay for it, even though technically is part of your
own benefit package. So the total cost of what could
be your wages is much lower. And when you really
dig down into his logic, I just think it's like
very obvious that really what people are quibbling about is
the definition of poverty, and what we should be talking
about is making it and if you don't make it
(09:10):
for long enough and whatever, really be convinced. If you
don't make it enough in the period of between twenty
years old and thirty five, I actually I'm not going
to say you're screwed, because like anyone can beat the odds,
but statistically, those are the most formative best years of
your life where you're laying the foundation that you can
build something on top of. And if you miss that
(09:31):
period where everything is on a downward trajectory, which is
where I think things are right now. Then you're going
to end up in an area at thirty five forty
forty two, which is where some of these first time
home buyers are, and you're just way more behind schedule,
which delays all kinds of things societally and creates just
a deep amount of problems. So the point of his
essay was, I think it was a wake up call
(09:53):
for elites who are in charge, and especially boomers.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Again, you know, guys know, I hate on boom rebel.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Part of the thing that drives me crazy is that
typical boomer ratitude of like, oh, just figure it out
when you're in college or something. They don't look at
overall educational inflation. They have no idea what it's like
for people to be graduating a twenty thirty forty fifty
thousand dollars in debt at a seven percent interest rate,
and especially if you have a graduate degree, if you're
pursuing something like that, that's just debt in the student
(10:18):
loan realm applies though even at the more basic level,
everyone always talks about trade school and accreditations. Accreditations are expensive,
you know, they're not cheap, and so even whenever you
take out loans for that, then if you have to
meet your you have to meet your payment obligation. You're
on a newer salary, you're making this. If our cost
of housing is some fifty sixty percent higher, then you
(10:41):
have no idea what it's like to live on that
very thin margin. And that's just not where things used
to be. The one thing I will give them is
I do think that we need to readjust a lot
of expectations, because this is something I've been thinking about
with the whole starter home thing. A lot of starter
homes from the nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties would not
pass as something that builders would want to do anymore
(11:02):
because they build big, more luxury items because people are
buying homes are mostly richer and have a lot more money.
We do need to bring back those Levittown models of
like fifteen hundred, two thousand square foot houses which are
not look they're not like nice.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
You know, it's not like full of marble and a
bunch of other shit. But who cares?
Speaker 3 (11:19):
Like the boys place to park the car, modest area
in the back, enough space, dining table in a kitchen,
that's it, all right. Yeah, you're not gonna have a
palatial living room. That's okay. I think most people would
sign up for that, I really do. But that option
doesn't exist just.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
To be renting forever and like throwing money to a
landlord instead of ever building any wealth and getting on
that home ownership ladder like of course, but that, yeah,
there's a giant hole in the market. And yeah, because
it doesn't, it's not as profitable for developers, so it's
not what they pursue, which is why you have to
get the government directly involved in some fashion. I think
the childcare part of this is so important to highlight,
(11:55):
and a couple things that I've been thinking of from
a policy perspective. Childcare was part of the Build Back
Better bill that ends up getting killed under Biden, so
you know, real missed opportunity there to actually do something
that could have had such a tremendous benefit for families
across this country. And it's also I think an undersung
part of Zorn's agenda in New York. You know, I
(12:17):
think the buses and the rent freeze and the grocery
stores got more attention, but much more transformational actually would
be the Affordable Childcare proposal, which he's trying to work
with Kathy Hochlan to get implemented. If he's able to
do that in New York City, it would be such
a huge deal and such a big win for those families.
And the other thing that this guy points out is, hey,
(12:37):
you know, we talked about COVID, We talked about the
stimulus checks, and you know, as an explanation for why
people had more money in their bank accounts, that's certainly
part of it, and the super doll at all those
sorts of things. But one thing that we really didn't
account for or talk that much about is the fact
that people were at home so they did not need
to pay for childcare.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
Yeah, and there was a mini baby boom at that time.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Yeah, so this gigantic, this gigantic expense, the single largest
budget item for most any family that was taken off
the table and people did not have to pay that.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
No, it was stressful in many ways.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
I'm to go with your kids while you're trying to
be on your zoom call or whatever. But financially, you
saw bank accounts got larger for many people during that period,
for most people, and so I think that that was
an underreported and discussed benefit of COVID. I mean, you know,
a silver lining sort of, and one of the reasons
(13:32):
why there were these sort of contradictory economic indicators, because
just not having a pay childcare was such an incredible
boon for people, and you're not eating out at work,
and you're not having to pay for gas or as
much maintenance on your car because you're just at home.
So altering that expense landscape was really transformational for a
lot of people.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
And those were twenty twenty prices. Now imagine the current prices.
Oh yeah, my god, every time you go out to eat.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
Blow yourself in the head. Is this even worth it?
Speaker 5 (13:58):
Is?
Speaker 1 (13:58):
I don't even drink and my bills like fifty dollars.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
And you're like, well, it's not a level.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Right, that's right?
Speaker 3 (14:04):
Seriously, Like when you don't drink alcohol and the bills
start tipping up near the one.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Hundred dollars, You're like, what the fuck is going on?
It used to be like twenty dollars. But I'm not
faulting the restaurants. I get it, you make money.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
It's my fault.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
The childcare thing.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
The one thing I would do want to say is
as I've said, I truly believe free childcare as in
other people paying is not a good idea. I think
what it should be is to preserve optionality, as in
basically like a voucher or a tax credit system. So
if people don't want to work mom more dad, then
they can be paid to do that, or you can
(14:38):
spend that dollar and you can go spend it a childcare,
but you need to cap a cost. This is a
program that's been implemented in various other countries.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
It's been very successful.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
The point though, is that if you subsidize only childcare,
it actually screws over the non working mother or father
because it means that they don't get the subsidy. It's
kind of a societal design that pushes people into the
workplace if they don't want to be. So the thing
is like we have to design this child task credit
was a very rudimentary form of this. The point though,
(15:07):
is you have to make it very specifically so people
can do the family unit the way they want to do.
And there's a lot of data that a lot of
women and men would not work if they didn't have to.
Most people, a lot of peop wouldn't work if they
have to. The point, though, is not to say to
say nobody should work. It's to say what's easier whenever
you actually want to have a kid. That's why the
(15:28):
mini baby boom under COVID is criminally understudied. It happened
for a reason, Like you just said, there's a lot
less stress, people had more money in their bank accounts.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
It's pretty obvious. Now.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
I'm not sitting here saying that the Hungarian model or
throwing money at all of this is going to boost
the fertility rate over two point five percent.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Like that's not going to happen.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
That there's a lot there's too much evidence that throwing
money and making it acceptable just simply is not really
enough to compete with modernity. But that doesn't mean that
you shouldn't try to get marginally.
Speaker 4 (16:00):
Better, that you shouldn't make life easier.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Right, exact families, Right, it's not a good reason, even.
Speaker 4 (16:04):
If it's not.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
You know, so they breed more, but just so that
there the quality of life is better. I mean, I
let's put the next piece up.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
On the screen.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
So much of the illusion of prosperity in America is
just like a figment of our imagination. So I saw
these headlines after Black Friday of like, oh, Broad Friday
spending is up, Like, oh, that's interesting.
Speaker 4 (16:21):
Maybe that's a good sign.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
But then you start to dig into the numbers and
here's business Insider, they say that Black Friday shoppers are
now relying more on buy now, pay later plans. Here's
how that could backfire and put the next piece up
on the screen. This this person on Carlson on Twitter
or Cochrane, sorry, broke down a bunch of the numbers here.
So he says, yes, there was a nine point one
increase in spending on Black Friday from last year, but
(16:46):
there was a negative one percent in total item volume
from last year. Prices we're seven percent higher. Consumers bought
on average four percent fewer items, so they spent more
than they got less.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
Okay, that's number one.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
And an eleven percent in on buy now, pay later use.
Klarna Specific which is one of these buy now, pay
later companies. Specific use was up forty five percent by
volume since last year. Roughly eleven percent of all Black
Friday spending was financed through BNPL and eighty four percent
of all purchases were financed by credit cards, where most
(17:19):
sixty seven percent of those consumers expect to not pay
the full bounce in the first month. So overall, a
total of ninety five percent a Black Friday shopping was
financed ninety five percent and sixty seven percent of that
was financed on debt that consumers do not expect to
be able to pay in the next thirty days.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
Because this is one thing.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
If your habit is just I put it on the
credit card and they pay off the whole credit car
points or we're not like okay, but we're talking about
two thirds that are saying, no, I am putting this,
I am taking on more debt to buy the Christmas shopping,
the gifts, and I do not expect that I will
be able to pay that off in the next thirty days.
And then he appined, which I think is just an
(18:01):
inevitable outcome of this. This is the sign of a
weakening and stretched consumer.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
So you know, the top.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Line number, oh Black Friday sales, you're spending was up.
Consumers must be doing fine. But you dig one layer
deeper and you see people taking on more or more debt,
spending more and getting less and being unable to pay
those those debt balances off in the next thirty days.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
Oh this is where my inner Dave Ramsey comes out though.
It's like, what are we doing doing Black Friday shop?
And when two thirds of people are it's like, you
shouldn't be buying. I mean, that's where the person will,
but I.
Speaker 4 (18:32):
Think probably there's also a lot of people.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
It drives me nuts.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
I think there's probably also a lot of people who
have consolidated their shop into Black Friday to get the deals.
You just try to get the best, you know, the
best price they possibly could as also a cost saving mat.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
At one point, let's do that debate in the future.
Did you see that Ramsey host Jade Warshaw? I love
her by the way she went on Fox News and
she's like, by the way, not all adults need Christmas gifts,
and I agree with her.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
I agree with her.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
Okay, pouring all this money into Amazon and Jeff Bezos's pocket,
you can get some gift that the guy barely's going
to open for your great uncle or something.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Sorry, it's fucking stupid.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
You know.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
In my family, we've paired back this year where we're
doing everybody you know did like secret Sanna drawing, and
so instead of everybody buying for everybody, it's like, okay,
you're getting for this.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
We do the same thing in my wife family. In
my family, we're like, we don't need gifts. Sorry, we're Indian,
We're not you know, we don't need to sell my credit.
That's the way it should be now, if you want to.
But just in general, though, the amount of crap that
we pour into Black Friday, I mean, you could go
on Amazon today look at their Cyber Monday deals and
look through everything that you're supposedly saving money on then
and go check what the price was five years ago
(19:36):
and then be like, do you really actually need it?
That is one though, where people are way too comfortable
with credit card debt, and you know, you're just you're
digging yourself into a hole which is very, very hard
to get out of. And that's but at the same time,
I get it, you know, I talk here about weed
and sports, gambling and all that stuff. If you've got
nothing else going on in your life and buying cheap
shit at Target or on Amazon makes you feel better,
(19:59):
I do understand.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Like where that can well, this is like.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
Our social contract.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
You're not going to own a home, but you can
get some random shit at Walmart. Like that is the
social contract that we have been given. So no, I
don't blame people for availing themselves of the only petiphit.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
I'm gonna give them a little bit of blame putting
yourself in a credit card. There's that viral video that
the Ramsey team just did of Disney where they went
to Disney and they're like, how much debt people have?
Speaker 1 (20:22):
People have one hundred thousand dollars debt going in Disney. Yeah,
but yeah, people, Look, I'm raised Indian. We don't do that.
Speaker 4 (20:27):
Want their Christmas to be special.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
You know.
Speaker 4 (20:29):
I mean, it's a lot of plan you got it.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
There's a lot of pressure on parents to make it memorable.
And it's a very consumerist society.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
So it's it's a sidal problem I get.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
But you know, be a hero and stand up for
your for don't go into debt. Make sure your children
don't have to grow up in a debt f re asshole.
But look, at the same time, I'm gonna shame people
too hard because we can't talk too much about poverty
and the system and how it's all rigged against you.
If the only outlet you have is some twenty eight
percent you know, interest credit card debt to buy some
(21:02):
new headphones or PS five or whatever. I do understand
how things would get channeled into that. And that's ultimately why, Like,
who's the villain in this discussion, which I think is
totally fair.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Speaking of villains, Yes, indeed, so Trump has pardoned a
new fraudster. Seems to have a soft spot for them.
Perhaps he sees kindred spirits here. And Caroline Levitt yesterday
got asked about this particular commutation. So this was this
guy who basically ran Ponzi scheme, defrauded, you know, was
found guilty of defrauding over there world. Over one thousand
(21:35):
people who testified to those submitted statements to the court
talking about the way that he'd stolen their life savings.
And we're talking we're not talking about billionaires here. There's
like teachers and nurses and firefighters and stuff who had
their life ruined by this dude. Trump decided that he
deserved a commutation of his sentence. Carolinelevitt got asked about that.
List t Listen, why did the president commute the sentence
(21:56):
of David Gentimeow recently used a private executive.
Speaker 5 (21:59):
Private the executive he served twelve days out of a
seven year sentence. The prosecutor said he to fraud it
one point six billion dollars with thousands of victims, including veterans, farmers, teachers.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
And why was supported.
Speaker 6 (22:13):
He issued a commutation for mister Gentile, who's the former
CEO and co founder of GBP Capital Holdings. Unlike similar companies,
GBP paid regular, annualized distributions to its investors. In twenty fifteen,
GBP disclosed to investors the possibility of using investor capital
to pay some of these distributions rather than funding them
(22:34):
from current operations. Even though this was disclosed to investors,
the Biden Department of Justice claimed it was a Ponzi scheme.
This claim was profoundly undercut by the fact that GBP
had explicitly told investors what would happen at trial. The
government was unable to tie any supposedly fraudulent representations to
mister Gentile. In short, again, this is another example that
(22:55):
has been brought to the President's attention of a weaponization
of justice from the previously, and therefore he signed this commutation.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
Let's put eat three up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
So I can get into some of the details of
what this guy was convicted of. So the headline here
is Trump freeze fraudster just days into his seven year
prison sentence. By the way, this guy was convicted alongside
his partner. The partner is still in prison serving the sentence.
He had a lesser sentence than this guy, but he
did not get the commutation. And be pretty pissed if
(23:25):
I was that guy anyway, they say. In court filings,
prosecutors said that mister Gentile and mister Schneider, over several years,
used private equity funds controlled by mister Gentiles company g
GPB Capital, to defraud ten thousand investors by misrepresenting the
performance of the funds and the source of money used
to make monthly distribution payments. More than a thousand people
(23:47):
submitted statements attesting to their losses, courting prosecutors who characterize
the victims as hardworking everyday people, including small business owners, farmers, veterans, teachers, nurses.
I lost my whole life savings, one broade, adding I
am living from to check in a statement after the sentencing.
In May, Joseph Nescella Junior, the US attorney in the
Eastern District of New York said mister Gentile and mister
(24:07):
Schneider had raised approximately one point six billion dollars from
individual investors based on false promises of generating investment returns
from the profits of portfolio companies, all while using investor
capital to pay distributions and create a false appearance of success.
The sentences, mister Noscella added, were a warning to would
(24:27):
be fraudsters that seeking to get rich by taking advantage
of investors gets you a one way ticket to jail. So,
I mean, the structure of this classic Ponzi scheme, take
in a bunch of money, make a bunch of big promises,
and then instead of actually developed, you know, generating returns
that you can use to pay off your investors, instead
(24:48):
they just would use new investors' money to pay off
the old investors. That's what's called a Ponzi scheme, and
that is what this guy was found guilty of. So,
you know, we haven't discerned in this particular case whether
there was some direct you know, whether this guy was
friends with Don Junior, paid some whoever who was hunting
(25:09):
buddies with him, or you know, friends with Peter. We
haven't discerned what that particular connection was. But we have
seen a pattern in this administration of fraudsters, and specifically
fraudsters with direct connections to Donald Trump, getting let off
the hook for their white collar crimes.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
And it is quite disgusting.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
Yeah, if you read after they say he raised one
point six billion from individual investors based on false pretenses
and investment. It's just literally as classic as a Ponzi
scheme as it gets. But the White House is saying
it's actually not. So why are they getting involved in
whether something is a Ponzi scheme or not? Is it
(25:46):
maybe because somebody influential helped to convince them? As you said,
I would love to see the behind the scenes on that.
You don't just get a commutation from the President of
the United States, especially from this one, without somebody somewhere
saying something. And by the way, this is part of
the issue. This is all part of a pattern now
of a lot of these paid to play.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
Let's go to the next one. Please.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
This is about this Ponzi schemer who got Trump clemency
then got a new thirty seven year term. Did you
guys hear me correctly? Is that a convicted Ponzi schemer
whose twenty four ear prison term was commuted by Trump
in twenty twenty one, was sentenced to another thirty seven
years behind bars for stealing forty four million dollars from
(26:26):
investors after he was released. Ellie Yahu Weinstein was sentenced
Friday for deep rauding investors who believed their money was
buying COVID nineteen baby form my nineteen mass baby Formula
one first aid kids bound for Ukraine instead use the
money to repay early investors and for personal expenses like
(26:48):
gambling in casinos and buying real estate.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
That incdible, despicable, Yeah, incredible. And the other thing when
we were preparing for this segment, the thing that was
crazy to me is like I didn't even like this
guy who got reconvicted and is just like doing schemes
instantly after Trump, you know, originally commutes his sentence. I
didn't see news articles about that, and another time that
would be a huge scandal. And then put this next
(27:12):
one up on the screen. This is E five. This
was another one. I mean, it barely broke through that
this even happened. This tax cheat who got pardoned after
his mom, who's a big fundraiser for Trump in general
and attended this one million dollar dinner. After she goes
to this dinner, lo and behold her son gets a pardon.
Oh gee, wonder how that happened? The allegation, not even
(27:36):
the allegation. I mean, he was convicted of this. This
guy was running and there was actually his mother and
him were running this nursing home conglomerate. And do you
know how you're supposed to as a business owner withhold
taxes from your employees that you send to the federal
government and then you know, then they pay off whether
they have to pay more less at the end of
the year. But there's you know, tax withholding. He was
(27:58):
withholding the money and just keeping it and spending it
on yachts and vacations and luxury goods and whatever, which
I'm like, not only obviously is that wildly unethical and
illegal and wrong, but how did you not know you
were gonna get caught like that? Is it seems to
me like something so easy for the irs to figure
(28:22):
out what's going on here? And so he commits these
this blatant fraud, just out and out steals cash from
his employees, spends it on yachts and vacations, et cetera,
and then gets a pardon from the president because his
mom does some fundraisings.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
It is discussing.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
I mean, we really genuinely like the pardon power is
out of control. And do I have any hope that
this is going to be changed? It requires constitutional amendment.
Speaker 4 (28:48):
No, I do not.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
But I saw Rocanna calling for Hey, we got it.
We got to do something about this because this is crazy.
And Trump of course takes it to the most grotesque level.
But it's not like he's the first to abuse the
pardon power. Worse, we saw what Biden did with it.
If Bill Clinton want to be partnered brother or whatever.
I mean, there's always like sketchy shit that happens with
the pardon power, especially at.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
The end of the by the way, remember Michael Milkin
or any of these other people's right, Yeah, you like,
there's there's a lot like this. The origins of like
sketchy rich people buying pardons goes all the way back.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Yeah, And what it used to be is they would
do it like Biden did at the end of his term,
when it's like, ah, there's good people aren't gonna like this.
But whatever I'm on of here anyway. Now Trump is
just normalized. Now I'm just gonna parton the fraudsters and
the January sixth rioters and like all these white collar
fraudsters and Republican members of Congress like George Santos. I'm
just gonna do it all the time, and eventually there's
(29:44):
gonna be so many you're not even gonna keep track,
and you're not gonna really care anymore.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
And this is just how it is. Do something about it.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
I have this power, is like the power of the king,
and I'm going to use it to as such. And
it has a major implication we're about to talk about,
you know, Pete Hegseth and whatever.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
Because anyone who is in Trump's good graces knows that they.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
Can commit a legal acts and be like with impunity
because as long as they stay in his good graces,
then they are likely to get the benefit of the pardon,
so they don't really have to worry about whether or
not they're following the law.
Speaker 4 (30:19):
It creates a whole class of people.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Around the king who can act with impunity because they
benefit from the King's favor and are able to do
whatever they want with no concert.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
I mean, one of the things that people don't appreciate
is how monarchical the president can be. And the I
was kind of telling you is yesterday. The origins of
part and power go back to the time of the Constitution,
when the idea of a republican small R leader was
kind of anathema all across Europe. And so there were
a lot of debates for all of these people who
(30:49):
are former English subjects of like, how can we possibly
confer authority onto our leader who is democratically elected, but
who will retain the respect of the monarchs of Europe
who you know, they don't disappear until I don't know,
nineteen fourteen, for nineteen eighteen, right, so two hundred years
or one hundred fifty years or whatever after the Constitution
is actually being written. So they put in a lot
(31:12):
of these pardon powers, and it was actually was a
debate there at the time. What eventually basically comes through
is they're like, no, like because he's democratically elected and
ahe as a check against a judicial branch. But the
most convincing argument at the time was that the pardon
power was necessary to quell and to quash like post
(31:33):
like vindictive feelings after insurrection or rebellion.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
So if you think back to Andrew.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
Johnson or how Lincoln potentially would have used the pardon
if he had lived like that was one of the
arguments that really pushed through the Constitutional Convention. They did
though in envision they're like, what if the president uses
it to cover up treason and co conspirators. This was
raised by some of the Founding Fathers. Eventually didn't really
went out, but yeah, I mean I do think that
this is part of the problem that the pardon power
(31:59):
is crazy. It's actually insane. Yeah, And it's one of those.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Where at least you could I mean, you could imagine
a process where like it has to be approved by
Congress or something. But this just like, no, I'm going
to just give blanket immunity to anyone who's nice to me.
Speaker 4 (32:14):
Creates a really fucked up sis totally.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
And then you have multiple presidents who pardoned family members.
Roger Clinton that was a famous one back in the nineties,
I mean, Biden's pardon for hunters. Look, I know it
sounds quaint or whatever, but it's actually crazy. So like
any and all crimes you are absolved, how can you
possibly have that like it's nuts. Yeah, and then multiple
billionaires and others where look, it's they always are able
(32:38):
to be like, oh, it was unfair to me. The
Milk and One remains the craziest. One of my favorite
books was specifically about Michael Milkin, and it's by James Stewart,
specifically about the whole like insider trading arbitrage scandal back
in the nineteen eighties, and Rudy Giuliani was one of
the people who helped prosecute them, and then he later
becomes a lobbyist and he's like, actually, you should pardon.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
My keeah broken.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
That's I mean, that's what they got away with. And
this is the first Trump administration.
Speaker 4 (33:04):
It totally.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Let's talk about Pete Hegseeth now briefly because the show's
going going long, but I do want to touch on
them because it actually relates directly to this. It appears
that Trump and Hegsath are effectively throwing this admiral Yes,
who was involved in the first boat bombing that you know,
it was revealed to have been this double tap strike
(33:28):
strike which we talked about yesterday. Two survivors remained, and
then they you know, they do another drone strike to
murder those other two survivors. Now I think the whole
thing is only I think the first strike was illegal.
I think the second strike was even more clearly illegal.
Like I think it was all murder. I do not
think we are at war with drug traffickers. I don't
think they have the authority to do this. But if
(33:48):
you accept their logic, which again you shouldn't, but if
you accept their logic, then that second one is almost clear.
It's like a textbook definition of a war crime. Literally,
in the UCMJ manual where they talk about when it
would be appropriate to disobey orders, the example they use
is two survivors clinging to a shipwreck. That is the
(34:08):
text literally, the textbook example that is used of this
is the time when you should disobey the orders because
they are so clearly unlawful. So that's why this is
getting so much attention. And Pete, we covered yesterday, did
not really deny the reporting. Of course objected the idea
that it was illegal, did not deny the reporting. And
then yesterday he and Caroline Levitt, you know, from the podium,
(34:31):
really seeks to position the decision making as having not
been really with Pete heagset but with this admiral who
was involved. And I'll get in a moment to why
this is relevant to the pardon conversation, although you guys
can probably put the pieces together here, but let's go
ahead and take a listen to F three. This is
Caroline Levitt being asked about this double type tap strike.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
Does the administration deny that that second strike happened?
Speaker 6 (34:55):
Or did it happen and the administration denies a sectuary
headset ta the latter is true, yamee, and I have
a statement to read for you here. President Trump and
Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco
terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with
the laws of war. With respect to the strikes in question.
(35:17):
On September second, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct
these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority
and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat
was destroyed and the threat to the United States of
America was eliminated.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
So Admiral Bradley, so Pete directed Admiral BLA Bradley and
then oh, Pete definitely was within the laws of war,
but they're really shifting the decision making from you know,
the original report was that Pete had said kill everybody,
and then that was the order that led to this
double tap strike. I also want to point out soccer
people are surfacing you at the time, because I don't
(35:57):
know if you guys remember they shared the first bombing
of the boat, not the second part, but the first
part they shared on Twitter and was bragging about. And
Pete was doing a whole like victory lap around this,
and he talked about how he watched it live and
how deeply involved he was in this whole process. Now
he's trying to position himself like, oh, Admiral Bradley was
(36:20):
totally within his rights, but it was totally his decision,
not mine.
Speaker 3 (36:23):
Yeah, can we go. Let's skip ahead to F seven
just to show this. So Pete says, let's make one
thing crystal clear. Admiral Bradley is an American hero, a
true professional, and has one hundred percent support. I stand
by him in the combat decisions he has made on
the September second mission and all others since America is
for if you are a men and women who.
Speaker 1 (36:43):
Are serving in the armed forces.
Speaker 3 (36:45):
How can you possibly think that these people are going
to have your back when they're the ones who are
putting you potentially in legal jeopardy and then hang your
ass out to dry whenever anything gets even remotely hot.
At least have the courage to stand up and own
the overall attack. Now let's go to the New York
Times story f five. This everything is murky. Stick with
(37:06):
us because we will eventually get to this. Hag Seth
ordered a lethal attack, but not the killing of survivors.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
Officials say so. They interviewed five people.
Speaker 3 (37:16):
I'm assuming basically everybody goes on the record here or
on background here for who is actually involved. What they
said is that heg Seth told them go and kill
people on the boat.
Speaker 1 (37:28):
They do the initial strike. According to them, he didn't.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
Say, after the survivors existed, go and kill them, Bradley
ordered a secondary strike. To quote fulfill Bradley ordered a
secondary strike. This is where everything becomes complicated. What they
say is that quote before the attack, he had briefed
them on his execute order to engage the boat with
(37:53):
a lethal force. But they did not address what should
happen if people survived. What then happened is that Admiral
Bradley had an intended second strike, and the intention of
that strike is kind of unclear, as in, was he
going in to try and to kill the survivors, was
(38:13):
he apparently going in to try and destroy the rest
of the so called drug cargo or by the way,
no evidence of that, but at the very length of
this second drug cargo, of the rest of the boat.
So what they say is that in real armed naval conflict,
it is lawful to fire on a partly disabled enemy
warship that is continuing to maneuver or fire its guns,
(38:36):
even if there's a wounded sailor a board or shipwrecksler cleaning.
But if the warship signals it's out of the fight
by ceasing firing and lowering its colors, then it becomes
this is a problem though these are drug boats. Well, okay,
there's the boats that they say are drug boats, and
the two people on that they don't have color. It's
not the United you know, it's not the British Navy
versus the Nazi.
Speaker 1 (38:55):
Yeah, there's no anyone, there's nobody. Well, yeah, exactly I mean,
there's no evidence they're firing on them.
Speaker 3 (39:00):
They're saying that the drugs on board are the ones
that are an imminent threat to America, that they're an
ARCO terrorist.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
So it's like, what the hell is going on here?
Speaker 3 (39:06):
And this is part of what Look, this is gonna
get bogged down in tediousness where everyone will say, oh, technically,
the point is that the strikes are bullshit, all right,
They're just bold, Like that's why even getting into all
of this, like well, the second strike, No, they have
a memo which has never been released. It's a secret memo,
which is it reminds me of the secret NSA spying
(39:27):
from back in the two thousands, where they're like, we
have determined that the strikes are legal.
Speaker 1 (39:31):
Can we see the memo? No, you can't see it.
Speaker 3 (39:33):
Okay, we have determined that these are terrorist groups and
that even though Congress has never declared war, that we
are in an armed conflict and thus have the authority.
This is even sketchier than the drone strike authorities during
the War on Terror. But I do also want to
say what a lot of people are ponting out is
that all of this happened during the war on terror.
(39:54):
And that's the problem is that this became normalized and
has now moved into the care being with the same bullshit,
sketchy legal authority that we bob Somalia, Yemen, layby, Afghanistan, Iraq.
How many times have we gone through all these strikes
you see people on target. People were like, oh, we
used to do this all the time in Afghanistan. I'm like, yeah,
that's not a defense though, right ex exactly.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
That's the issue, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Well, And I think to me you're right about the
like getting into the weeds in this misses the point
in a couple of ways. Number One, the whole shit
is illegal, it's all. The first strike was illegal, the
second strike is illegal. The whole operation is illegal. It's unconscionable.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
These are all.
Speaker 2 (40:32):
This is not even war crimes. This is murder, right, Okay,
that's in one way that the details miss the point.
But the part that matters is the fact that they
are scrambling to say, oh, Pete had nothing to do
with the second strike tells you they are actually worried
about the judgment of what this meant and the legal grounds,
(40:54):
the very shaky legal grounds on which it stands. So
that to me is the important of this squabbling and
trying to nitpick the exact details of who said what
and when and who is technically responsible and Pete in
the White House aggressively we stand behind Admiral Bradley and
the decisions that he definitely totally made all on his
(41:15):
own on that day. That blame shifting is I think
what's really notable and shows you a level of nervousness,
because what do we have now? We have a bipartisan
Senate and a bipartisan House named Brocnnor once again stepping
up involved in this bipartisan House investigation into what the
hell happened here?
Speaker 4 (41:34):
So this is where you get to.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
Okay, let's talk again about these pardon powers that Trump
has used so expansively. Imagine you are Admiral Bradley, and
you are not you know, a household name with you know,
all the cover of you know, all the elite cover
that comes with that, Not that admirals aren't their own
form of elites, but will put that aside for the moment. Okay,
(41:56):
you're being asked to testify, now what happened on that day?
Are you going to contradict the White House and their
version of events when you're worried about your own ass
and your potential legal liability. Are you going to contradict
them when you know that the key to you staying
in legal good graces is the president's powdon power, and
(42:18):
the last thing you want to do is piss him off,
even if it means that you have to lie and
cover up what actually happened on that day and what
you actually think about it. That is the landscape that
exists now. And so that's why you know, these pardon
powers is not just about these even though that's bad too,
these frousters who are being let off the hook. It's
also about the way it shapes behavior of people inside
(42:40):
this administration right now today, and the ethical and moral
landscape and the choice array that it sets up for them.
So that's why this is all very significant, the way
they're setting this up and the way that they're framing it.
And you know, I think it's it's this is one
of the first times where we've seen some Republicans get
(43:01):
a little bit nervous, express some concern and even in
some cases some outright disapproval about the you know, the
lawlessness with which this administration has conducted itself in these operations.
Speaker 3 (43:11):
Here's the real you know why, is that they are
putting all of these people in such a shit situation.
For example, at Bradley, he's a so calm commander, career
Navy seal. He should not be worrying about whether his
ass is legally on the line or not whenever he's
in the middle of an operator. Now he's in a
shit position, right, because they're like, well, the sec deaf
(43:32):
said it's legal, or SEC war Sorry, I apologize, the
sect war said it was illegal, so we can go ahead.
And now all of a sudden, this guy who's a
career naval official, Navy seal is now a name who's
going to be called in subpoena before what is he
supposed to do? Right? And then what about the guys
under his command? Allegedly this is supposed to be Sealed
Team six. We have the Tier one Special operators who,
(43:54):
again they're used to going on these types of missions.
Speaker 1 (43:57):
They probably didn't even really know.
Speaker 3 (43:59):
What the legality said situation, and now all of a
sudden they are now and they're like, oh my god, like,
are we going to get called in before Congress.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
They should never have to worry about that.
Speaker 3 (44:08):
That's why I mean the process it will be exactly
so the process is supposed to work. Congress declares, wark
we're good, done, dusted, right, you have an authority laws
of war. That's why even you know, reading the naval
warfare thing, they're like, oh, if they lower their it
doesn't apply, right, And that's why we have all of
these you know, processes and all these other things in place.
(44:28):
And it was sketchy even under the two thousand and
one au m F against Terrorism.
Speaker 1 (44:33):
Now we'll get to that.
Speaker 3 (44:34):
Like, the fact is is like we normalize a lot
of this behavior, which set the terms for this. But
this one is even crazier because it's here it's a
domestic supposed to be a domestic law enforcement thing that
then just gets determined active conflict, which is also part
of an ideological regime change operation in Venezuela, which is
why the whole.
Speaker 1 (44:54):
Thing is just the whole thing is just completely insane.
Speaker 3 (44:57):
And so what they've done to these to these operators,
it's unconscionable because they've put them in a horrible situation like, yeah,
the civilian leaders are the ones who I who are
one hundred percent should own this and the fact that
they're trying to pass this off to a decorated US
Navy steel so com commander total bullshit. Yeah, bullshit.
Speaker 1 (45:17):
I mean it really is.
Speaker 2 (45:18):
And here's the thing is, like I keep going back
to that article about how these nonprofits that provide legal
advice to service members, how they've seen this uptick and
calls where people are calling them like, uh, what do
you think about this?
Speaker 4 (45:30):
And they said that it was the higher level. Was like,
not you know, the rank and file.
Speaker 2 (45:34):
It was higher level people who were in decision making
positions because they have some awareness of this way this
normally functions is not functioning.
Speaker 5 (45:42):
Now.
Speaker 4 (45:42):
I no longer have.
Speaker 2 (45:43):
Faith that there's even you know, some jag and some
process where there's any kind of a legal justification that
at all remotely passes muster being prepared here. And so
they're having to themselves become like lawyers. And you know,
if you're in the military, you're you're going to be
schooled in the loss of war.
Speaker 4 (46:03):
You know, that's part of your training.
Speaker 2 (46:04):
And I assume the higher you are up the ladder,
the more integral that is to your training.
Speaker 4 (46:08):
But you're still not a lawyer, and.
Speaker 2 (46:10):
Now you're having to question everything that comes in and say, well,
is this, like, what am I going to say about this?
When if I get called in front of a congressional
committee and under oath have to testify, what am I
going to say about this? If the Democrats take power?
It's only my ass is charged with a war craft like,
how is this all going to go? That's where they
are right now. So you know, I think this is
(46:32):
probably pretty eye opening for a lot of people to
see them so brazenly pass the buck like this and
try to wash Beat's hands a responsibility. And the last
thing I'll say about this whole dynamic, and part of
why I think this is kind of breaking through is
because Pete he said, even you know, putting any sort
of ideological like valance aside, people just feel like he's chaotic,
(46:56):
like he's been a shitty shitty at his job. I
think that's evidenced by the fact that, you know, he's
not really integral. He's not on this inside Marco Rubio,
Steve Witcoff team that's involved in these big decisions. He's
been somewhat sidelined in that regard his leadership has zero
confidence with the Pentagon.
Speaker 4 (47:15):
A lot of people just don't like this dude.
Speaker 2 (47:17):
And one thing I've seen in you know, whether it's
in media or in other spaces, is when you know,
there start to be some cracks in the facade. If
people really love you, and they appreciate you or they
respect you, then they'll sort of circle the wagons. And
if they hate you and they are pissed off at
the way you've handled yourself or perhaps the way you've
knife them or knife them in the back. In some
(47:39):
instances that we have some awareness of, guess what, maybe
they're not going to be there to protect you, or
maybe they're going to be the ones leaking. Maybe they're
going to be the ones who are, you know, providing
information that leads to your downfall. That's where those inter
personal dynamics start to become very very important.
Speaker 3 (47:55):
Right, That's what's happening with cash Betel. Like, remember, these
are Republicans in the FBI, who really yo, this.
Speaker 1 (48:00):
Guy's a clown.
Speaker 2 (48:01):
Yeah, but this dude his insecurities and his temper tantrums
like because of his own incompetence.
Speaker 3 (48:07):
Yeah, all right, So there you go, Thank you guys.
So much for watching, appreciate it. We'll see you all later.
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Let's turn now to poverty. There was an absolutely fascinating.
Speaker 3 (00:37):
Essay that went very very viderable amongst the you know,
the economy literati, and it was about the poverty line.
And as you guys may know, the federal poverty line
is a set standard where it's currently set is very
very low. There's long been a discussion about whether that
poverty line really captures things. But this new essay by
Michael Green argues that the federal poverty line should be
(00:59):
higher and hire.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
A lot high.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Let's put this up here on the screen. So what
he writes, very specifically is that the US poverty line,
which is currently set to keep a family out of
poverty is thirty two one hundred and fifty for a
family of four.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Michael Green did some math.
Speaker 3 (01:15):
Quote for a family of four to afford housing, healthcare, challdcare,
and other necessities, he calculated that they would need at
least one hundred and thirty six thousand dollars a year.
He says it should be more than four times that
a figure would mean that the majority of American households
are living in poverty by his metric. This idea, which
they specifically say, published on sub stack, and again it
(01:35):
made a huge It was went so viral amongst economists
and others.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Basically, what he's.
Speaker 3 (01:40):
Saying, the more like conservative faction is saying it's ridiculous, quote,
disconnected from reality, laughable to put poverty line far above
the median income in the United States, which is some
eighty three thousand dollars. But the thing is is that
if you read it, it does make sense to me.
The only quibble is about the definition of poverty. So
(02:03):
the question is is does poverty mean destitute or does
it mean not getting by. I guess we've learned of
it as destitute, but not getting by for a long
enough period, I don't know. I mean, maybe it does
count as poverty, yah, And I think that's one of them.
And by the way, that's why part of the whole
discussion is really frustrating. And anybody who has lived in
(02:25):
a high cost of living area, we all know people
making one hundred two even two hundred thousand who are
not close to making it, like, not close to achieving
even modestly more than what their parents did. I'm not
gonna say sit here and call it poverty, but I
would sit here and say that's a systemic failure. And
that's part of why I appreciate the essay because all
(02:45):
the matter, you guys should go read it, just specifically
about the way that he breaks down all the costs,
the cost all the costs basic necessities, which we've talked
about here before as well. The fact is is like
upward mobility, especially in a higher cost of living areas,
which no, you don't have to live there, but that
is for most of the economic activity is mostly unattainable
for anybody who makes a median household income that's a
(03:08):
systemic issue, and it didn't always used to be like that.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
That's the bottom line.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Yeah, And so here are his estimates of using what
he describes as conservative national average data of the baseline costs,
the sort of like participation costs, so that you can
be in you know, normal standing in society and participate
in like a normal way with society. Childcare most expensive
(03:32):
thirty two thousand and seven seventy three thirty two thousand
dollars per childcare, housing twenty three thousand, plus food fourteen thousand,
plus transportation fourteen thousand, plus healthcare ten k, other essentials
twenty one k required net income one eighteen and then
you add taxes on top of that, you're getting one
thirty six, five hundred. That's where he gets the numbers from,
(03:54):
and he says, you know, listen, the quibble that I
get from people is, you know, yes, it's good to
reevaluate where the poverty line is. I think everybody agrees
that the way of calculating is certainly outdated on I
can go into more on that in a moment, but
they're like, listen, you know, if you're if you're getting
(04:14):
a landline, you know, you're you're putting in things here
that are way more expensive than just the essentials. So
but Key points out, in order to participate in society,
like back when the poverty line was established, you needed
a land line, which costs you, you know, a.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
Minimal amount per month.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Now the same landline is even cheaper, but that doesn't
allow you to fully participate in society. You need that
two hundred dollars smartphone. And so while certain costs have
gone down, the cost of being a full participant in
society has gone up dramatically. And then of course these
categories have gone through the roof. All of these areas,
(04:52):
except for food, are places where you know, costs have
gone up and up and up. We talk all the
time about childcare, housing, This does any factor in the
cost of you know, a college education, which is another
extraordinary expense. And so this helps to capture why so
many people who when you look at their income, you're like,
you should be doing fine. Why so many people are like, no,
(05:12):
but I'm drowning, but like life is really difficult, and
I feel like I'm getting behind, and I feel like
things are going to be more difficult for my children.
Speaker 4 (05:21):
So it's a very fascinating.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Look, you know, with regard to the poverty line, what
he points out is when it was established, food was
made up about a third of overall spending, So the
poverty line was established as three times whatever the average
food budget was, and they have kept that metric the
whole time, even though now food is only maybe five
(05:43):
or six percent of the overall budget because these other
categories have increased in costs so much. And also, you know,
childcare that used to not be something that needed to
be considered at all because you typically had a one
income family. That income was sufficient for this level of life,
baseline societal participation, and if you had childcare, it was
(06:03):
like relatives usually who would or neighbors who would take
care and look after the kids. So now that you
basically have to have two incomes in most instances in
order to make it in society. That second income it's
not like that's all just going to the bottom line.
The first thirty two thousand dollars of that second income
(06:24):
is just going straight to some other person to take
care of your kids. That's the first part. So then
you have to be clearing more than that to even
make the second job worthwhile. And that's the other you know,
that's like the two income trap. That's like the hidden.
Speaker 4 (06:39):
Costs that have been added on to families.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
And then the other thing that he points out, which is,
you know, part of why I support universal programs versus
this like neoliberal, piecemeal social safety net thing that we
do is that if you are very low income, life
is going to be difficult. I'm not saying you've got
it easy, but you do have some government supports. Right,
You're going to be qualified for SNAP, You're going to
qualify for Medicaid, You're going to get subsidies with regards
(07:03):
to childcare as well.
Speaker 4 (07:04):
There's going to be some help.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
And at certain levels, as you climb up the income scale,
there are these cliffs where Okay, now I'm not getting SNAPPED,
so now that all is on me, Okay, So whatever
income I'm earning, I have to subtract out of that
what I was previously getting. Okay, Now I go up
with another level. Now I'm not getting Medicaid anymore. I
have to pull pay full freight for healthcare. That's an
extraordinary expense. So whatever additional I'm earning is basically all
(07:27):
being eaten up by those additional costs, and you can
see how that allows politicians to turn middle class or
working poor people against the very poor, because they're like,
this is not fair. This person's working less than me
and getting way more, And they're right, it's not fair.
But the problem isn't that person who is also struggling.
The problem is the design of the system. And the
(07:48):
problem is that, you know, those who have rigged the
system for their benefit and keeping everybody miserated in this way.
Speaker 3 (07:53):
Yeah, I mean the way I always look at it,
especially with this one, is not only the two income trap,
but also the prison of a lot of this for you.
You're damned if you do, and you really are damned
if you don't. Also, thirty thousand dollars, we'd be lucky.
After thirty thousand dollars childcare where I live we have
been I think the seventh highest in the United States SEC,
(08:14):
which is only beaten in Northern Virginia by Arlington, which
is number one in the whole of America. Hearing the
DMB one hundred and fifty k over a five year period.
So the point though it actually I think it might
be might be one sixth crazy, So it is crazy
and that's after taxing a house. It is ouse in
some places in this country. But that's the issue. What
(08:35):
you see inside of this is not only from housing
but also healthcare. Because he says ten k I'm lucky
for paid ten thousand dollars for health insurance.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
That's a long dream. After you have a child, If.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
You have employer sponsored healthcare, I guess you're lucky to
pay for it, even though technically is part of your
own benefit package. So the total cost of what could
be your wages is much lower. And when you really
dig down into his logic, I just think it's like
very obvious that really what people are quibbling about is
the definition of poverty, and what we should be talking
about is making it and if you don't make it
(09:10):
for long enough and whatever, really be convinced. If you
don't make it enough in the period of between twenty
years old and thirty five, I actually I'm not going
to say you're screwed, because like anyone can beat the odds,
but statistically, those are the most formative best years of
your life where you're laying the foundation that you can
build something on top of. And if you miss that
(09:31):
period where everything is on a downward trajectory, which is
where I think things are right now. Then you're going
to end up in an area at thirty five forty
forty two, which is where some of these first time
home buyers are, and you're just way more behind schedule,
which delays all kinds of things societally and creates just
a deep amount of problems. So the point of his
essay was, I think it was a wake up call
(09:53):
for elites who are in charge, and especially boomers.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Again, you know, guys know, I hate on boom rebel.
Speaker 3 (09:58):
Part of the thing that drives me crazy is that
typical boomer ratitude of like, oh, just figure it out
when you're in college or something. They don't look at
overall educational inflation. They have no idea what it's like
for people to be graduating a twenty thirty forty fifty
thousand dollars in debt at a seven percent interest rate,
and especially if you have a graduate degree, if you're
pursuing something like that, that's just debt in the student
(10:18):
loan realm applies though even at the more basic level,
everyone always talks about trade school and accreditations. Accreditations are expensive,
you know, they're not cheap, and so even whenever you
take out loans for that, then if you have to
meet your you have to meet your payment obligation. You're
on a newer salary, you're making this. If our cost
of housing is some fifty sixty percent higher, then you
(10:41):
have no idea what it's like to live on that
very thin margin. And that's just not where things used
to be. The one thing I will give them is
I do think that we need to readjust a lot
of expectations, because this is something I've been thinking about
with the whole starter home thing. A lot of starter
homes from the nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties would not
pass as something that builders would want to do anymore
(11:02):
because they build big, more luxury items because people are
buying homes are mostly richer and have a lot more money.
We do need to bring back those Levittown models of
like fifteen hundred, two thousand square foot houses which are
not look they're not like nice.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
You know, it's not like full of marble and a
bunch of other shit. But who cares?
Speaker 3 (11:19):
Like the boys place to park the car, modest area
in the back, enough space, dining table in a kitchen,
that's it, all right. Yeah, you're not gonna have a
palatial living room. That's okay. I think most people would
sign up for that, I really do. But that option
doesn't exist just.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
To be renting forever and like throwing money to a
landlord instead of ever building any wealth and getting on
that home ownership ladder like of course, but that, yeah,
there's a giant hole in the market. And yeah, because
it doesn't, it's not as profitable for developers, so it's
not what they pursue, which is why you have to
get the government directly involved in some fashion. I think
the childcare part of this is so important to highlight,
(11:55):
and a couple things that I've been thinking of from
a policy perspective. Childcare was part of the Build Back
Better bill that ends up getting killed under Biden, so
you know, real missed opportunity there to actually do something
that could have had such a tremendous benefit for families
across this country. And it's also I think an undersung
part of Zorn's agenda in New York. You know, I
(12:17):
think the buses and the rent freeze and the grocery
stores got more attention, but much more transformational actually would
be the Affordable Childcare proposal, which he's trying to work
with Kathy Hochlan to get implemented. If he's able to
do that in New York City, it would be such
a huge deal and such a big win for those families.
And the other thing that this guy points out is, hey,
(12:37):
you know, we talked about COVID, We talked about the
stimulus checks, and you know, as an explanation for why
people had more money in their bank accounts, that's certainly
part of it, and the super doll at all those
sorts of things. But one thing that we really didn't
account for or talk that much about is the fact
that people were at home so they did not need
to pay for childcare.
Speaker 1 (12:56):
Yeah, and there was a mini baby boom at that time.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Yeah, so this gigantic, this gigantic expense, the single largest
budget item for most any family that was taken off
the table and people did not have to pay that.
Speaker 4 (13:10):
No, it was stressful in many ways.
Speaker 2 (13:12):
I'm to go with your kids while you're trying to
be on your zoom call or whatever. But financially, you
saw bank accounts got larger for many people during that period,
for most people, and so I think that that was
an underreported and discussed benefit of COVID. I mean, you know,
a silver lining sort of, and one of the reasons
(13:32):
why there were these sort of contradictory economic indicators, because
just not having a pay childcare was such an incredible
boon for people, and you're not eating out at work,
and you're not having to pay for gas or as
much maintenance on your car because you're just at home.
So altering that expense landscape was really transformational for a
lot of people.
Speaker 3 (13:50):
And those were twenty twenty prices. Now imagine the current prices.
Oh yeah, my god, every time you go out to eat.
Speaker 1 (13:55):
Blow yourself in the head. Is this even worth it?
Speaker 5 (13:58):
Is?
Speaker 1 (13:58):
I don't even drink and my bills like fifty dollars.
Speaker 4 (14:01):
And you're like, well, it's not a level.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Right, that's right?
Speaker 3 (14:04):
Seriously, Like when you don't drink alcohol and the bills
start tipping up near the one.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Hundred dollars, You're like, what the fuck is going on?
It used to be like twenty dollars. But I'm not
faulting the restaurants. I get it, you make money.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
It's my fault.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
The childcare thing.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
The one thing I would do want to say is
as I've said, I truly believe free childcare as in
other people paying is not a good idea. I think
what it should be is to preserve optionality, as in
basically like a voucher or a tax credit system. So
if people don't want to work mom more dad, then
they can be paid to do that, or you can
(14:38):
spend that dollar and you can go spend it a childcare,
but you need to cap a cost. This is a
program that's been implemented in various other countries.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
It's been very successful.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
The point though, is that if you subsidize only childcare,
it actually screws over the non working mother or father
because it means that they don't get the subsidy. It's
kind of a societal design that pushes people into the
workplace if they don't want to be. So the thing
is like we have to design this child task credit
was a very rudimentary form of this. The point though,
(15:07):
is you have to make it very specifically so people
can do the family unit the way they want to do.
And there's a lot of data that a lot of
women and men would not work if they didn't have to.
Most people, a lot of peop wouldn't work if they
have to. The point, though, is not to say to
say nobody should work. It's to say what's easier whenever
you actually want to have a kid. That's why the
(15:28):
mini baby boom under COVID is criminally understudied. It happened
for a reason, Like you just said, there's a lot
less stress, people had more money in their bank accounts.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
It's pretty obvious. Now.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
I'm not sitting here saying that the Hungarian model or
throwing money at all of this is going to boost
the fertility rate over two point five percent.
Speaker 1 (15:46):
Like that's not going to happen.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
That there's a lot there's too much evidence that throwing
money and making it acceptable just simply is not really
enough to compete with modernity. But that doesn't mean that
you shouldn't try to get marginally.
Speaker 4 (16:00):
Better, that you shouldn't make life easier.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
Right, exact families, Right, it's not a good reason, even.
Speaker 4 (16:04):
If it's not.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
You know, so they breed more, but just so that
there the quality of life is better. I mean, I
let's put the next piece up.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
On the screen.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
So much of the illusion of prosperity in America is
just like a figment of our imagination. So I saw
these headlines after Black Friday of like, oh, Broad Friday
spending is up, Like, oh, that's interesting.
Speaker 4 (16:21):
Maybe that's a good sign.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
But then you start to dig into the numbers and
here's business Insider, they say that Black Friday shoppers are
now relying more on buy now, pay later plans. Here's
how that could backfire and put the next piece up
on the screen. This this person on Carlson on Twitter
or Cochrane, sorry, broke down a bunch of the numbers here.
So he says, yes, there was a nine point one
increase in spending on Black Friday from last year, but
(16:46):
there was a negative one percent in total item volume
from last year. Prices we're seven percent higher. Consumers bought
on average four percent fewer items, so they spent more
than they got less.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
Okay, that's number one.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
And an eleven percent in on buy now, pay later use.
Klarna Specific which is one of these buy now, pay
later companies. Specific use was up forty five percent by
volume since last year. Roughly eleven percent of all Black
Friday spending was financed through BNPL and eighty four percent
of all purchases were financed by credit cards, where most
(17:19):
sixty seven percent of those consumers expect to not pay
the full bounce in the first month. So overall, a
total of ninety five percent a Black Friday shopping was
financed ninety five percent and sixty seven percent of that
was financed on debt that consumers do not expect to
be able to pay in the next thirty days.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
Because this is one thing.
Speaker 2 (17:39):
If your habit is just I put it on the
credit card and they pay off the whole credit car
points or we're not like okay, but we're talking about
two thirds that are saying, no, I am putting this,
I am taking on more debt to buy the Christmas shopping,
the gifts, and I do not expect that I will
be able to pay that off in the next thirty days.
And then he appined, which I think is just an
(18:01):
inevitable outcome of this. This is the sign of a
weakening and stretched consumer.
Speaker 4 (18:06):
So you know, the top.
Speaker 2 (18:08):
Line number, oh Black Friday sales, you're spending was up.
Consumers must be doing fine. But you dig one layer
deeper and you see people taking on more or more debt,
spending more and getting less and being unable to pay
those those debt balances off in the next thirty days.
Speaker 3 (18:24):
Oh this is where my inner Dave Ramsey comes out though.
It's like, what are we doing doing Black Friday shop?
And when two thirds of people are it's like, you
shouldn't be buying. I mean, that's where the person will,
but I.
Speaker 4 (18:32):
Think probably there's also a lot of people.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
It drives me nuts.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
I think there's probably also a lot of people who
have consolidated their shop into Black Friday to get the deals.
You just try to get the best, you know, the
best price they possibly could as also a cost saving mat.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
At one point, let's do that debate in the future.
Did you see that Ramsey host Jade Warshaw? I love
her by the way she went on Fox News and
she's like, by the way, not all adults need Christmas gifts,
and I agree with her.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
I agree with her.
Speaker 3 (18:56):
Okay, pouring all this money into Amazon and Jeff Bezos's pocket,
you can get some gift that the guy barely's going
to open for your great uncle or something.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Sorry, it's fucking stupid.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
You know.
Speaker 2 (19:05):
In my family, we've paired back this year where we're
doing everybody you know did like secret Sanna drawing, and
so instead of everybody buying for everybody, it's like, okay,
you're getting for this.
Speaker 3 (19:15):
We do the same thing in my wife family. In
my family, we're like, we don't need gifts. Sorry, we're Indian,
We're not you know, we don't need to sell my credit.
That's the way it should be now, if you want to.
But just in general, though, the amount of crap that
we pour into Black Friday, I mean, you could go
on Amazon today look at their Cyber Monday deals and
look through everything that you're supposedly saving money on then
and go check what the price was five years ago
(19:36):
and then be like, do you really actually need it?
That is one though, where people are way too comfortable
with credit card debt, and you know, you're just you're
digging yourself into a hole which is very, very hard
to get out of. And that's but at the same time,
I get it, you know, I talk here about weed
and sports, gambling and all that stuff. If you've got
nothing else going on in your life and buying cheap
shit at Target or on Amazon makes you feel better,
(19:59):
I do understand.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Like where that can well, this is like.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
Our social contract.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
You're not going to own a home, but you can
get some random shit at Walmart. Like that is the
social contract that we have been given. So no, I
don't blame people for availing themselves of the only petiphit.
Speaker 3 (20:14):
I'm gonna give them a little bit of blame putting
yourself in a credit card. There's that viral video that
the Ramsey team just did of Disney where they went
to Disney and they're like, how much debt people have?
Speaker 1 (20:22):
People have one hundred thousand dollars debt going in Disney. Yeah,
but yeah, people, Look, I'm raised Indian. We don't do that.
Speaker 4 (20:27):
Want their Christmas to be special.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
You know.
Speaker 4 (20:29):
I mean, it's a lot of plan you got it.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
There's a lot of pressure on parents to make it memorable.
And it's a very consumerist society.
Speaker 1 (20:37):
So it's it's a sidal problem I get.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
But you know, be a hero and stand up for
your for don't go into debt. Make sure your children
don't have to grow up in a debt f re asshole.
But look, at the same time, I'm gonna shame people
too hard because we can't talk too much about poverty
and the system and how it's all rigged against you.
If the only outlet you have is some twenty eight
percent you know, interest credit card debt to buy some
(21:02):
new headphones or PS five or whatever. I do understand
how things would get channeled into that. And that's ultimately why, Like,
who's the villain in this discussion, which I think is
totally fair.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Speaking of villains, Yes, indeed, so Trump has pardoned a
new fraudster. Seems to have a soft spot for them.
Perhaps he sees kindred spirits here. And Caroline Levitt yesterday
got asked about this particular commutation. So this was this
guy who basically ran Ponzi scheme, defrauded, you know, was
found guilty of defrauding over there world. Over one thousand
(21:35):
people who testified to those submitted statements to the court
talking about the way that he'd stolen their life savings.
And we're talking we're not talking about billionaires here. There's
like teachers and nurses and firefighters and stuff who had
their life ruined by this dude. Trump decided that he
deserved a commutation of his sentence. Carolinelevitt got asked about that.
List t Listen, why did the president commute the sentence
(21:56):
of David Gentimeow recently used a private executive.
Speaker 5 (21:59):
Private the executive he served twelve days out of a
seven year sentence. The prosecutor said he to fraud it
one point six billion dollars with thousands of victims, including veterans, farmers, teachers.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
And why was supported.
Speaker 6 (22:13):
He issued a commutation for mister Gentile, who's the former
CEO and co founder of GBP Capital Holdings. Unlike similar companies,
GBP paid regular, annualized distributions to its investors. In twenty fifteen,
GBP disclosed to investors the possibility of using investor capital
to pay some of these distributions rather than funding them
(22:34):
from current operations. Even though this was disclosed to investors,
the Biden Department of Justice claimed it was a Ponzi scheme.
This claim was profoundly undercut by the fact that GBP
had explicitly told investors what would happen at trial. The
government was unable to tie any supposedly fraudulent representations to
mister Gentile. In short, again, this is another example that
(22:55):
has been brought to the President's attention of a weaponization
of justice from the previously, and therefore he signed this commutation.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
Let's put eat three up on the screen.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
So I can get into some of the details of
what this guy was convicted of. So the headline here
is Trump freeze fraudster just days into his seven year
prison sentence. By the way, this guy was convicted alongside
his partner. The partner is still in prison serving the sentence.
He had a lesser sentence than this guy, but he
did not get the commutation. And be pretty pissed if
(23:25):
I was that guy anyway, they say. In court filings,
prosecutors said that mister Gentile and mister Schneider, over several years,
used private equity funds controlled by mister Gentiles company g
GPB Capital, to defraud ten thousand investors by misrepresenting the
performance of the funds and the source of money used
to make monthly distribution payments. More than a thousand people
(23:47):
submitted statements attesting to their losses, courting prosecutors who characterize
the victims as hardworking everyday people, including small business owners, farmers, veterans, teachers, nurses.
I lost my whole life savings, one broade, adding I
am living from to check in a statement after the sentencing.
In May, Joseph Nescella Junior, the US attorney in the
Eastern District of New York said mister Gentile and mister
(24:07):
Schneider had raised approximately one point six billion dollars from
individual investors based on false promises of generating investment returns
from the profits of portfolio companies, all while using investor
capital to pay distributions and create a false appearance of success.
The sentences, mister Noscella added, were a warning to would
(24:27):
be fraudsters that seeking to get rich by taking advantage
of investors gets you a one way ticket to jail. So,
I mean, the structure of this classic Ponzi scheme, take
in a bunch of money, make a bunch of big promises,
and then instead of actually developed, you know, generating returns
that you can use to pay off your investors, instead
(24:48):
they just would use new investors' money to pay off
the old investors. That's what's called a Ponzi scheme, and
that is what this guy was found guilty of. So,
you know, we haven't discerned in this particular case whether
there was some direct you know, whether this guy was
friends with Don Junior, paid some whoever who was hunting
(25:09):
buddies with him, or you know, friends with Peter. We
haven't discerned what that particular connection was. But we have
seen a pattern in this administration of fraudsters, and specifically
fraudsters with direct connections to Donald Trump, getting let off
the hook for their white collar crimes.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
And it is quite disgusting.
Speaker 3 (25:26):
Yeah, if you read after they say he raised one
point six billion from individual investors based on false pretenses
and investment. It's just literally as classic as a Ponzi
scheme as it gets. But the White House is saying
it's actually not. So why are they getting involved in
whether something is a Ponzi scheme or not? Is it
(25:46):
maybe because somebody influential helped to convince them? As you said,
I would love to see the behind the scenes on that.
You don't just get a commutation from the President of
the United States, especially from this one, without somebody somewhere
saying something. And by the way, this is part of
the issue. This is all part of a pattern now
of a lot of these paid to play.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
Let's go to the next one. Please.
Speaker 3 (26:06):
This is about this Ponzi schemer who got Trump clemency
then got a new thirty seven year term. Did you
guys hear me correctly? Is that a convicted Ponzi schemer
whose twenty four ear prison term was commuted by Trump
in twenty twenty one, was sentenced to another thirty seven
years behind bars for stealing forty four million dollars from
(26:26):
investors after he was released. Ellie Yahu Weinstein was sentenced
Friday for deep rauding investors who believed their money was
buying COVID nineteen baby form my nineteen mass baby Formula
one first aid kids bound for Ukraine instead use the
money to repay early investors and for personal expenses like
(26:48):
gambling in casinos and buying real estate.
Speaker 2 (26:52):
That incdible, despicable, Yeah, incredible. And the other thing when
we were preparing for this segment, the thing that was
crazy to me is like I didn't even like this
guy who got reconvicted and is just like doing schemes
instantly after Trump, you know, originally commutes his sentence. I
didn't see news articles about that, and another time that
would be a huge scandal. And then put this next
(27:12):
one up on the screen. This is E five. This
was another one. I mean, it barely broke through that
this even happened. This tax cheat who got pardoned after
his mom, who's a big fundraiser for Trump in general
and attended this one million dollar dinner. After she goes
to this dinner, lo and behold her son gets a pardon.
Oh gee, wonder how that happened? The allegation, not even
(27:36):
the allegation. I mean, he was convicted of this. This
guy was running and there was actually his mother and
him were running this nursing home conglomerate. And do you
know how you're supposed to as a business owner withhold
taxes from your employees that you send to the federal
government and then you know, then they pay off whether
they have to pay more less at the end of
the year. But there's you know, tax withholding. He was
(27:58):
withholding the money and just keeping it and spending it
on yachts and vacations and luxury goods and whatever, which
I'm like, not only obviously is that wildly unethical and
illegal and wrong, but how did you not know you
were gonna get caught like that? Is it seems to
me like something so easy for the irs to figure
(28:22):
out what's going on here? And so he commits these
this blatant fraud, just out and out steals cash from
his employees, spends it on yachts and vacations, et cetera,
and then gets a pardon from the president because his
mom does some fundraisings.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
It is discussing.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
I mean, we really genuinely like the pardon power is
out of control. And do I have any hope that
this is going to be changed? It requires constitutional amendment.
Speaker 4 (28:48):
No, I do not.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
But I saw Rocanna calling for Hey, we got it.
We got to do something about this because this is crazy.
And Trump of course takes it to the most grotesque level.
But it's not like he's the first to abuse the
pardon power. Worse, we saw what Biden did with it.
If Bill Clinton want to be partnered brother or whatever.
I mean, there's always like sketchy shit that happens with
the pardon power, especially at.
Speaker 3 (29:08):
The end of the by the way, remember Michael Milkin
or any of these other people's right, Yeah, you like,
there's there's a lot like this. The origins of like
sketchy rich people buying pardons goes all the way back.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Yeah, And what it used to be is they would
do it like Biden did at the end of his term,
when it's like, ah, there's good people aren't gonna like this.
But whatever I'm on of here anyway. Now Trump is
just normalized. Now I'm just gonna parton the fraudsters and
the January sixth rioters and like all these white collar
fraudsters and Republican members of Congress like George Santos. I'm
just gonna do it all the time, and eventually there's
(29:44):
gonna be so many you're not even gonna keep track,
and you're not gonna really care anymore.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
And this is just how it is. Do something about it.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
I have this power, is like the power of the king,
and I'm going to use it to as such. And
it has a major implication we're about to talk about,
you know, Pete Hegseth and whatever.
Speaker 4 (30:00):
Because anyone who is in Trump's good graces knows that they.
Speaker 2 (30:04):
Can commit a legal acts and be like with impunity
because as long as they stay in his good graces,
then they are likely to get the benefit of the pardon,
so they don't really have to worry about whether or
not they're following the law.
Speaker 4 (30:19):
It creates a whole class of people.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
Around the king who can act with impunity because they
benefit from the King's favor and are able to do
whatever they want with no concert.
Speaker 3 (30:28):
I mean, one of the things that people don't appreciate
is how monarchical the president can be. And the I
was kind of telling you is yesterday. The origins of
part and power go back to the time of the Constitution,
when the idea of a republican small R leader was
kind of anathema all across Europe. And so there were
a lot of debates for all of these people who
(30:49):
are former English subjects of like, how can we possibly
confer authority onto our leader who is democratically elected, but
who will retain the respect of the monarchs of Europe
who you know, they don't disappear until I don't know,
nineteen fourteen, for nineteen eighteen, right, so two hundred years
or one hundred fifty years or whatever after the Constitution
is actually being written. So they put in a lot
(31:12):
of these pardon powers, and it was actually was a
debate there at the time. What eventually basically comes through
is they're like, no, like because he's democratically elected and
ahe as a check against a judicial branch. But the
most convincing argument at the time was that the pardon
power was necessary to quell and to quash like post
(31:33):
like vindictive feelings after insurrection or rebellion.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
So if you think back to Andrew.
Speaker 3 (31:38):
Johnson or how Lincoln potentially would have used the pardon
if he had lived like that was one of the
arguments that really pushed through the Constitutional Convention. They did
though in envision they're like, what if the president uses
it to cover up treason and co conspirators. This was
raised by some of the Founding Fathers. Eventually didn't really
went out, but yeah, I mean I do think that
this is part of the problem that the pardon power
(31:59):
is crazy. It's actually insane. Yeah, And it's one of those.
Speaker 2 (32:02):
Where at least you could I mean, you could imagine
a process where like it has to be approved by
Congress or something. But this just like, no, I'm going
to just give blanket immunity to anyone who's nice to me.
Speaker 4 (32:14):
Creates a really fucked up sis totally.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
And then you have multiple presidents who pardoned family members.
Roger Clinton that was a famous one back in the nineties,
I mean, Biden's pardon for hunters. Look, I know it
sounds quaint or whatever, but it's actually crazy. So like
any and all crimes you are absolved, how can you
possibly have that like it's nuts. Yeah, and then multiple
billionaires and others where look, it's they always are able
(32:38):
to be like, oh, it was unfair to me. The
Milk and One remains the craziest. One of my favorite
books was specifically about Michael Milkin, and it's by James Stewart,
specifically about the whole like insider trading arbitrage scandal back
in the nineteen eighties, and Rudy Giuliani was one of
the people who helped prosecute them, and then he later
becomes a lobbyist and he's like, actually, you should pardon.
Speaker 1 (33:00):
My keeah broken.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
That's I mean, that's what they got away with. And
this is the first Trump administration.
Speaker 4 (33:04):
It totally.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
Let's talk about Pete Hegseeth now briefly because the show's
going going long, but I do want to touch on
them because it actually relates directly to this. It appears
that Trump and Hegsath are effectively throwing this admiral Yes,
who was involved in the first boat bombing that you know,
it was revealed to have been this double tap strike
(33:28):
strike which we talked about yesterday. Two survivors remained, and
then they you know, they do another drone strike to
murder those other two survivors. Now I think the whole
thing is only I think the first strike was illegal.
I think the second strike was even more clearly illegal.
Like I think it was all murder. I do not
think we are at war with drug traffickers. I don't
think they have the authority to do this. But if
(33:48):
you accept their logic, which again you shouldn't, but if
you accept their logic, then that second one is almost clear.
It's like a textbook definition of a war crime. Literally,
in the UCMJ manual where they talk about when it
would be appropriate to disobey orders, the example they use
is two survivors clinging to a shipwreck. That is the
(34:08):
text literally, the textbook example that is used of this
is the time when you should disobey the orders because
they are so clearly unlawful. So that's why this is
getting so much attention. And Pete, we covered yesterday, did
not really deny the reporting. Of course objected the idea
that it was illegal, did not deny the reporting. And
then yesterday he and Caroline Levitt, you know, from the podium,
(34:31):
really seeks to position the decision making as having not
been really with Pete heagset but with this admiral who
was involved. And I'll get in a moment to why
this is relevant to the pardon conversation, although you guys
can probably put the pieces together here, but let's go
ahead and take a listen to F three. This is
Caroline Levitt being asked about this double type tap strike.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
Does the administration deny that that second strike happened?
Speaker 6 (34:55):
Or did it happen and the administration denies a sectuary
headset ta the latter is true, yamee, and I have
a statement to read for you here. President Trump and
Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco
terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with
the laws of war. With respect to the strikes in question.
(35:17):
On September second, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct
these kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority
and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat
was destroyed and the threat to the United States of
America was eliminated.
Speaker 2 (35:34):
So Admiral Bradley, so Pete directed Admiral BLA Bradley and
then oh, Pete definitely was within the laws of war,
but they're really shifting the decision making from you know,
the original report was that Pete had said kill everybody,
and then that was the order that led to this
double tap strike. I also want to point out soccer
people are surfacing you at the time, because I don't
(35:57):
know if you guys remember they shared the first bombing
of the boat, not the second part, but the first
part they shared on Twitter and was bragging about. And
Pete was doing a whole like victory lap around this,
and he talked about how he watched it live and
how deeply involved he was in this whole process. Now
he's trying to position himself like, oh, Admiral Bradley was
(36:20):
totally within his rights, but it was totally his decision,
not mine.
Speaker 3 (36:23):
Yeah, can we go. Let's skip ahead to F seven
just to show this. So Pete says, let's make one
thing crystal clear. Admiral Bradley is an American hero, a
true professional, and has one hundred percent support. I stand
by him in the combat decisions he has made on
the September second mission and all others since America is
for if you are a men and women who.
Speaker 1 (36:43):
Are serving in the armed forces.
Speaker 3 (36:45):
How can you possibly think that these people are going
to have your back when they're the ones who are
putting you potentially in legal jeopardy and then hang your
ass out to dry whenever anything gets even remotely hot.
At least have the courage to stand up and own
the overall attack. Now let's go to the New York
Times story f five. This everything is murky. Stick with
(37:06):
us because we will eventually get to this. Hag Seth
ordered a lethal attack, but not the killing of survivors.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
Officials say so. They interviewed five people.
Speaker 3 (37:16):
I'm assuming basically everybody goes on the record here or
on background here for who is actually involved. What they
said is that heg Seth told them go and kill
people on the boat.
Speaker 1 (37:28):
They do the initial strike. According to them, he didn't.
Speaker 3 (37:32):
Say, after the survivors existed, go and kill them, Bradley
ordered a secondary strike. To quote fulfill Bradley ordered a
secondary strike. This is where everything becomes complicated. What they
say is that quote before the attack, he had briefed
them on his execute order to engage the boat with
(37:53):
a lethal force. But they did not address what should
happen if people survived. What then happened is that Admiral
Bradley had an intended second strike, and the intention of
that strike is kind of unclear, as in, was he
going in to try and to kill the survivors, was
(38:13):
he apparently going in to try and destroy the rest
of the so called drug cargo or by the way,
no evidence of that, but at the very length of
this second drug cargo, of the rest of the boat.
So what they say is that in real armed naval conflict,
it is lawful to fire on a partly disabled enemy
warship that is continuing to maneuver or fire its guns,
(38:36):
even if there's a wounded sailor a board or shipwrecksler cleaning.
But if the warship signals it's out of the fight
by ceasing firing and lowering its colors, then it becomes
this is a problem though these are drug boats. Well, okay,
there's the boats that they say are drug boats, and
the two people on that they don't have color. It's
not the United you know, it's not the British Navy
versus the Nazi.
Speaker 1 (38:55):
Yeah, there's no anyone, there's nobody. Well, yeah, exactly I mean,
there's no evidence they're firing on them.
Speaker 3 (39:00):
They're saying that the drugs on board are the ones
that are an imminent threat to America, that they're an
ARCO terrorist.
Speaker 1 (39:04):
So it's like, what the hell is going on here?
Speaker 3 (39:06):
And this is part of what Look, this is gonna
get bogged down in tediousness where everyone will say, oh, technically,
the point is that the strikes are bullshit, all right,
They're just bold, Like that's why even getting into all
of this, like well, the second strike, No, they have
a memo which has never been released. It's a secret memo,
which is it reminds me of the secret NSA spying
(39:27):
from back in the two thousands, where they're like, we
have determined that the strikes are legal.
Speaker 1 (39:31):
Can we see the memo? No, you can't see it.
Speaker 3 (39:33):
Okay, we have determined that these are terrorist groups and
that even though Congress has never declared war, that we
are in an armed conflict and thus have the authority.
This is even sketchier than the drone strike authorities during
the War on Terror. But I do also want to
say what a lot of people are ponting out is
that all of this happened during the war on terror.
(39:54):
And that's the problem is that this became normalized and
has now moved into the care being with the same bullshit,
sketchy legal authority that we bob Somalia, Yemen, layby, Afghanistan, Iraq.
How many times have we gone through all these strikes
you see people on target. People were like, oh, we
used to do this all the time in Afghanistan. I'm like, yeah,
that's not a defense though, right ex exactly.
Speaker 1 (40:15):
That's the issue, isn't it.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Well, And I think to me you're right about the
like getting into the weeds in this misses the point
in a couple of ways. Number One, the whole shit
is illegal, it's all. The first strike was illegal, the
second strike is illegal. The whole operation is illegal. It's unconscionable.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
These are all.
Speaker 2 (40:32):
This is not even war crimes. This is murder, right, Okay,
that's in one way that the details miss the point.
But the part that matters is the fact that they
are scrambling to say, oh, Pete had nothing to do
with the second strike tells you they are actually worried
about the judgment of what this meant and the legal grounds,
(40:54):
the very shaky legal grounds on which it stands. So
that to me is the important of this squabbling and
trying to nitpick the exact details of who said what
and when and who is technically responsible and Pete in
the White House aggressively we stand behind Admiral Bradley and
the decisions that he definitely totally made all on his
(41:15):
own on that day. That blame shifting is I think
what's really notable and shows you a level of nervousness,
because what do we have now? We have a bipartisan
Senate and a bipartisan House named Brocnnor once again stepping
up involved in this bipartisan House investigation into what the
hell happened here?
Speaker 4 (41:34):
So this is where you get to.
Speaker 2 (41:36):
Okay, let's talk again about these pardon powers that Trump
has used so expansively. Imagine you are Admiral Bradley, and
you are not you know, a household name with you know,
all the cover of you know, all the elite cover
that comes with that, Not that admirals aren't their own
form of elites, but will put that aside for the moment. Okay,
(41:56):
you're being asked to testify, now what happened on that day?
Are you going to contradict the White House and their
version of events when you're worried about your own ass
and your potential legal liability. Are you going to contradict
them when you know that the key to you staying
in legal good graces is the president's powdon power, and
(42:18):
the last thing you want to do is piss him off,
even if it means that you have to lie and
cover up what actually happened on that day and what
you actually think about it. That is the landscape that
exists now. And so that's why you know, these pardon
powers is not just about these even though that's bad too,
these frousters who are being let off the hook. It's
also about the way it shapes behavior of people inside
(42:40):
this administration right now today, and the ethical and moral
landscape and the choice array that it sets up for them.
So that's why this is all very significant, the way
they're setting this up and the way that they're framing it.
And you know, I think it's it's this is one
of the first times where we've seen some Republicans get
(43:01):
a little bit nervous, express some concern and even in
some cases some outright disapproval about the you know, the
lawlessness with which this administration has conducted itself in these operations.
Speaker 3 (43:11):
Here's the real you know why, is that they are
putting all of these people in such a shit situation.
For example, at Bradley, he's a so calm commander, career
Navy seal. He should not be worrying about whether his
ass is legally on the line or not whenever he's
in the middle of an operator. Now he's in a
shit position, right, because they're like, well, the sec deaf
(43:32):
said it's legal, or SEC war Sorry, I apologize, the
sect war said it was illegal, so we can go ahead.
And now all of a sudden, this guy who's a
career naval official, Navy seal is now a name who's
going to be called in subpoena before what is he
supposed to do? Right? And then what about the guys
under his command? Allegedly this is supposed to be Sealed
Team six. We have the Tier one Special operators who,
(43:54):
again they're used to going on these types of missions.
Speaker 1 (43:57):
They probably didn't even really know.
Speaker 3 (43:59):
What the legality said situation, and now all of a
sudden they are now and they're like, oh my god, like,
are we going to get called in before Congress.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
They should never have to worry about that.
Speaker 3 (44:08):
That's why I mean the process it will be exactly
so the process is supposed to work. Congress declares, wark
we're good, done, dusted, right, you have an authority laws
of war. That's why even you know, reading the naval
warfare thing, they're like, oh, if they lower their it
doesn't apply, right, And that's why we have all of
these you know, processes and all these other things in place.
(44:28):
And it was sketchy even under the two thousand and
one au m F against Terrorism.
Speaker 1 (44:33):
Now we'll get to that.
Speaker 3 (44:34):
Like, the fact is is like we normalize a lot
of this behavior, which set the terms for this. But
this one is even crazier because it's here it's a
domestic supposed to be a domestic law enforcement thing that
then just gets determined active conflict, which is also part
of an ideological regime change operation in Venezuela, which is
why the whole.
Speaker 1 (44:54):
Thing is just the whole thing is just completely insane.
Speaker 3 (44:57):
And so what they've done to these to these operators,
it's unconscionable because they've put them in a horrible situation like, yeah,
the civilian leaders are the ones who I who are
one hundred percent should own this and the fact that
they're trying to pass this off to a decorated US
Navy steel so com commander total bullshit. Yeah, bullshit.
Speaker 1 (45:17):
I mean it really is.
Speaker 2 (45:18):
And here's the thing is, like I keep going back
to that article about how these nonprofits that provide legal
advice to service members, how they've seen this uptick and
calls where people are calling them like, uh, what do
you think about this?
Speaker 4 (45:30):
And they said that it was the higher level. Was like,
not you know, the rank and file.
Speaker 2 (45:34):
It was higher level people who were in decision making
positions because they have some awareness of this way this
normally functions is not functioning.
Speaker 5 (45:42):
Now.
Speaker 4 (45:42):
I no longer have.
Speaker 2 (45:43):
Faith that there's even you know, some jag and some
process where there's any kind of a legal justification that
at all remotely passes muster being prepared here. And so
they're having to themselves become like lawyers. And you know,
if you're in the military, you're you're going to be
schooled in the loss of war.
Speaker 4 (46:03):
You know, that's part of your training.
Speaker 2 (46:04):
And I assume the higher you are up the ladder,
the more integral that is to your training.
Speaker 4 (46:08):
But you're still not a lawyer, and.
Speaker 2 (46:10):
Now you're having to question everything that comes in and say, well,
is this, like, what am I going to say about this?
When if I get called in front of a congressional
committee and under oath have to testify, what am I
going to say about this? If the Democrats take power?
It's only my ass is charged with a war craft like,
how is this all going to go? That's where they
are right now. So you know, I think this is
(46:32):
probably pretty eye opening for a lot of people to
see them so brazenly pass the buck like this and
try to wash Beat's hands a responsibility. And the last
thing I'll say about this whole dynamic, and part of
why I think this is kind of breaking through is
because Pete he said, even you know, putting any sort
of ideological like valance aside, people just feel like he's chaotic,
(46:56):
like he's been a shitty shitty at his job. I
think that's evidenced by the fact that, you know, he's
not really integral. He's not on this inside Marco Rubio,
Steve Witcoff team that's involved in these big decisions. He's
been somewhat sidelined in that regard his leadership has zero
confidence with the Pentagon.
Speaker 4 (47:15):
A lot of people just don't like this dude.
Speaker 2 (47:17):
And one thing I've seen in you know, whether it's
in media or in other spaces, is when you know,
there start to be some cracks in the facade. If
people really love you, and they appreciate you or they
respect you, then they'll sort of circle the wagons. And
if they hate you and they are pissed off at
the way you've handled yourself or perhaps the way you've
knife them or knife them in the back. In some
(47:39):
instances that we have some awareness of, guess what, maybe
they're not going to be there to protect you, or
maybe they're going to be the ones leaking. Maybe they're
going to be the ones who are, you know, providing
information that leads to your downfall. That's where those inter
personal dynamics start to become very very important.
Speaker 3 (47:55):
Right, That's what's happening with cash Betel. Like, remember, these
are Republicans in the FBI, who really yo, this.
Speaker 1 (48:00):
Guy's a clown.
Speaker 2 (48:01):
Yeah, but this dude his insecurities and his temper tantrums
like because of his own incompetence.
Speaker 3 (48:07):
Yeah, all right, So there you go, Thank you guys.
So much for watching, appreciate it. We'll see you all later.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Betrayal: Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a brand new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack. And make sure to check out Seasons 1-4 of Betrayal, along with Betrayal Weekly Season 1.